[_2d30]

Except that, there are RCTs showing the positive impacts of Fluvoxamine and monoclonal antibodies so this is entirely false on all accounts.

[cuspy]

Those are not antivirals, which was quite clearly the subject of the post you're replying, so your rebuttal is entirely false on all accounts.

[_2d30]

HCQ and Ivermectin aren't "antivirals" so obviously the OP is not concerned with a strict definition of antiviral. Besides, it's a meaningless semantic argument.

[KMag]

The rebuttal is irrelevant/non sequitur, which is different from being false.

[_2d30]

Except it's not irrelevant even. The central claim is encapsulated in the first sentence:

> Because of the way they are constructed, Randomized Control Trials will never show any benefit for any antiviral against COVID-19

By noting that there are indeed RCTs that show effective treatments for COVID-19 (fluvoxamine and monoclonal antibodies), it renders the entire point false.

The semantic argument about what constitutes an "antiviral" is meaningless as the OP themselves plays fast and loose with this by establishing that HCQ and Ivermectin (primarily used as antiparasitics) as antivirals.